Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUBLIC HEARING - 2019-10-02 - LANG - PET. 2019-06-06-01 CITY OF LIVONIA PUBLIC HEARING Minutes of Meeting Held on Wednesday, October 2, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ A Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Livonia was held at the City Hall Auditorium on Wednesday, October 2, 2019. MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Toy, President Jim Jolly, Vice President Scott Bahr Brian Meakin Kathleen McIntyre Cathy White MEMBERS ABSENT: Brandon Kritzman OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Taormina, Director of Economic Development Todd Zilincik, City Engineer Leo Neville, Assistant City Attorney Sara Kasprowicz, Recording Secretary The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:24 p.m. with President Laura Toy presiding. This is a Public Hearing relative to Petition 2019-06-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution 163-19 and Section 23.01(a) of Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, proposing to amend Subsection 2 of Section 2.10, (definition of “Bed and Breakfast Establishment”) of Article II, to include residences marketed and offered for rent online by platforms such as “Airbnb”, “VRBO”, “HomeAway” or other similar websites. The Public Hearing is now open. There were twenty-seven people in the audience. Toy: With that, we’ll turn to the Law Department, am I correct on that do you want to go first? Taormina: I can offer some initial comments Toy: Ok, please, go right ahead. th Taormina: On May 8, the City Council referred this proposed language amendment to the Planning Commission to conduct a Public Hearing and thereafter, submit a report for recommendation. The proposed amendment was drafted by the City Law Department, mainly for the purpose of clarifying the position that short term rentals, such as Airbnb and VRBO are a form 2 of a bed and breakfast establishments and as such, should be treated the same. Ordinance No. 543 currently has a definition and regulations pertaining to the operation to the bed and breakfast establishments. The definition would be expanded to include rentals, marketed or offered for rent by way of online platforms, such as Airbnb and VRBO, Home Away or other similar rental websites. In residential districts, bed and breakfast establishments are allowed, subject to waiver use approval. Section 4.03G of the Ordinance 543 lists sixteen special requirements that apply to bed and breakfast establishments in residential zoning districts. These special requirements range from minimum lot size and parking, limitation on length of stay for guests, licensing as well as inspections. In reviewing and deliberating on this item, the Planning Commission recognizes the distinction between traditional bed and breakfast establishments and other forms of short-term rentals such as Airbnb, for which the proposed ordinance is intended to address. As such, the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission approves the amendment but recommends that five of the sixteen special requirements be exempt in connection with the operation of Airbnb and other similar, short-term rental operations. These are conditions number 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11 as enumerated in Section 4.03G of Ordinance No. 543. These requirements are, and I’m going to paraphrase a couple of them, 1, that the site be a minimum of ½ acre and a residential structure be no less than 2,000 square feet in size, 2, off- street parking shall be provided in the rear side yard in an amount of one parking space per bedroom, 3, direct access shall be available to a public street in an existing planned width of at least 86 feet or more, 4, such establishments shall be run by persons who own and occupy the premise for residential purposes and 11, guests occupancy shall be no longer than fourteen (14) consecutive days. So these are the five conditions that currently apply to bed and breakfast establishments that the Planning Commission feels should not apply to these other forms of short-term rentals, but still require short-term rentals such as these, be treated as a waiver use which would have to go through the normal public hearing process. First, in front of our Planning Commission, followed by review and prior approval by the City Council before being approved, so that, Madam President, also I can answer any questions. Toy: Thank you, um, comments? Yes. Councilman Meakin. Meakin: Since there’s probably a number of these already in establishment, will there be a grandfather clause? Taormina: I am going to punt this to Mr. Neville. Neville: Right now we found that the ongoing airbnb’s being conducted are in resident R-1 districts, most of them don’t meet the size or square footage requirements set forth for bed and breakfasts and none of them are 3 licensed, etcetera, so our position is that it should be retro-active and should be applicable to anybody who’s attempting to conduct a short-term rental like the Airbnb, VRBO, HomeAway, etcetera. Meakin: Has that been challenged in any other community? Neville: There is quite a debate going on at the Michigan Legislature, State wide, and they’re in many communities, not just resort communities that this has become quite an issue and so the hotel industry has sided with communities such as Livonia, from the stand-point of, well, their restricted as to how long guests may stay there and why should airbnbs or other short term rentals be exempt from the exact same requirements? They should be licensed, inspected, fire department, police department can inspect these facilities before they’re let out to customers. Our position is that the other requirements of the bed and breakfasts ordinance are a problem. Honestly, defer to Council to address as they seem fit, but we are very comfortable with our proposed ordinance. This is, like I said, until I had gone to Lansing to participate in the hearing, I didn’t realize how many communities are really stepping up to the plate and getting involved. From Detroit, to Jackson, all the way to Traverse City and all the resort communities and non-resort communities. It’s becoming a hot topic, I think State-wide. Meakin: Ok, any others, many people wanting to speak to this issue and with Council’s direction, I offer a resolution to send this to Committee of the Whole so they can go over this further, to go over some of those waivers suggested by the Planning Commission. Toy: Ok. Councilwoman McIntyre? McIntyre: I support my colleague, Mr. Meakin’s recommendation. I am very happy that we are taking the first step, which is running the ordinance under the zoning ordinance. Until this point, they have not been included, which is why we’ve had the wild west, if you will, of whatever goes and people can do whatever they want to and it people now running Airbnb and VRBO, HomeAway, the owner is free and the person who contracts with those services can do whatever they want and there is really no regulation and I think where we were going and it was clear at the long meeting that we had was, we want the ability to regulate this. I can see where the Planning Commission is coming from with some of the exemptions, but I want more time to understand these exemptions and to think through them and hear from my colleagues and have more opportunity to discuss it so I completely support Mr. Meakin’s recommendation. Thank you, Madam President. Bahr: Madam President? 4 Toy: Thank you, go right ahead. Bahr: To the Chair and Mark, I just want to repeat back what I heard to make sure I understood. My understanding, what I am hearing from you is, yes, we’re going to call these bed and breakfasts, but we’re no putting the ½ acre requirement on them, not putting the 2,000 square foot or higher requirement on them, we’re not putting the parking requirement on them, among some other things. So far I had that right, correct? Taormina: Correct. Bahr: So on the surface, this sounds actually, to those who came to our Committee meeting a number of months back who are currently bnb owners, this is probably a good thing. I think what we were talking about originally there was much more restrictive. We were talking about is calling it, make sure you were calling it a bed and breakfast, which would include those more restrictive requirements on them. So I actually like this because I think it allows us to be flexible as a city and to allow this new, well, not so new anymore, but it’s a new form of business to happen here, which I don’t think is a bad thing. One question I have though, is one of the requirements we talked about was, if I understand correctly, we’re not requiring that the person running this is the owner of the place? Am I reading that correctly? Is that condition d. in our packet. It says such establishments shall be run by persons who own and occupy the premises for residential purposes. Maybe I should be asking Leo this? Are we saying that for an Airbnb, HomeAway or VRBO, that it would not have to be operated by the owner? Neville: In some instances, the person that might be attempting to conduct the Airbnb might be a tenant, but there they are the occupier of that dwelling. So there are circumstances where somebody may be use/operating and Airbnb, neither the owner or a permanent occupant of that building is on site. It is our position is similar to what a bed and breakfast is required. Bahr: You’re saying they should be onsite? Neville: They should be. Bahr: Ok, I agree. Maybe I am reading this incorrectly. This is what it says, it says that the following show, were similar to the bed and breakfast except for the following conditions. One of the things we are saying except for is that it be run by the persons who have own and occupied the premises. The way I read that says, we’re saying you don’t have to have the owner/operator there, which I see as a problem. Neville: I heard that was one of the recommendations from the Planning Committee, Commission that it not be necessarily owner/occupier. 5 Taormina: That is correct. Neville: That was their decision or proposal with response to the event. Bahr: I think the idea to talk about this more in Committee would presume wise. That sitting here right now, I have a problem with and we are going to want to discuss further, so thanks. Toy: Certainly. Councilwoman McIntyre. McIntyre: I’d like to say one more thing. This is an illustration why local control on issues is so important as Mr. Neville, one of our City Attorneys has indicated. There’s been movement in Legislature to take away municipalities’ ability to regulate this and for the State to say, ‘We’re going to set the rules and communities have to abide by them’ so on issues like this, where you feel strongly about, local control in your community should be able to regulate this as it sees fit. It’s really important to contact your State Legislators and let them know where you want local control maintained, because there has been proposed legislation, there have been a lot of proposed legislation in the State Legislature regulating this, it is such a big segment now, a growing segment. It’s really important that you communicate that there are issues that you feel should be maintained locally and your municipality should have control over the regulations, thank you. Toy: Thank you. Council Vice President Jolly. Jolly: Thank you, Madam President. I was going to object to the same item that Mr. Bahr brought up in terms of owner-occupied suggestion from the Planning Commission. I do have a question though, and I know we went over this initially when you spoke about this. The City of Livonia currently requires inspections for rental properties, would the rental properties on a short-term basis, the Airbnb, the VRBO, would they be required to pass the same rental inspection obligations? Neville: On an annual basis, yes, like any other rental. Jolly: Ok. Thank you. Additionally, for those in the audience, if this is not clear, each individual who would want to do this, would have to seek a waiver to do so, correct? Neville: Correct, under the current ordinance. It’s a waiver use in the districts where it’s appropriate, opposed to being a... Jolly: We’re not trying to change that aspect, are we? 6 Neville: We are not. Jolly: So, any circumstance where your neighbor or somebody wanting to operate one of these things, there would be notice provided and there would be a hearing with the Planning Commission, with the City Council as well. There would be an entire process that they would have to go through to have the ability to offer this business in the area. Thank you. Toy: Thank you, Councilman. Anyone else from the Council? We have one resolution, I’m gonna ask you if you’d like to step up to the podium real quick? We have a young woman and several people here tonight Council that have some concerns over adult foster care, which it doesn’t apply but the confusion of some of the ordinance that applies to this type of thing, they wanted to bring up some pictures and I said that would be all right with Council, we’re getting through the agenda pretty quickly here so if you can give us a glimpse as to your concern and then we’ll pass what you brought along and we’ll call it a night, how’s that? Vandervennet: My name is Pamela Vandervennet, my address is 17311 Mayfield Street. I live in Greenbriar Estates, just north of Six Mile. We recently found out through a series of communication among the neighbors that the house directly next door to me at 17251 Mayfield Street has, they want to turn their home into adult foster care facility. Now, as the State of Michigan mandates, and I do have that information in this packet, there has to be a 1500-foot variance between any one of these facilities to another facility. It so happens that we do have an assisted living right at the corner of Mayfield and Six Mile, Mayfield Assisted Living and that is only 200 feet from the proposed site. There is also another facility across Six Mile at Bell Creek that is only 792 feet away from the Mayfield facility. It concerns us that the influx of these facilities going through our neighborhood is at a rapid increase and because we live on ¾, approximately ¾ acres of property, that some how we’re being penalized because this is where all of these facilities are being put in. Quickly, the people that purchased this house, Emily Toter is her name, has already discussed the fact that there will be no onsite 24-hour licensed person living in the home with the patients. They intend to hire a management company to come in and run the whole shebang. It is our understanding again that somebody who is licensed or owns the property has to be on site 24-7. There are other issues that we’re concerned about, such as, there are no sidewalks or streetlights on our street. There are a number of walkers, children, etcetera that use the street walk because there are no sidewalks. We are also concerned about the increase in traffic the decrease in property values the lack of parking ability and just 24 hours a day ambulance and police here. 7 Toy: I’m gonna stop you there. Council Vice President Jolly does have a question. Vandervennet: Sure. Jolly: So, excuse me for not being up to date with the rules and regulations, as this is not a posted item on the agenda tonight, obviously I can’t have time to prepare, I don’t think any of us have. From what you just said, these homes are in violation already, correct? Based on the distance? Vandervennet: Yes Jolly: What does the law provide in terms of regulation, who would you file a complaint with? Vandervennet: Well, with this particular instance we would have to file a complaint with the State of Michigan because it is mandated by the State about the 1500- foot variance. Jolly: Ok, so not to cut you off, but have you done that? Vandervennet: We’re working on it. Our concern is that these people came in and they did a complete demolition of the inside of the home before putting forth any plans, architectural plans without home permits, without doing anything the way any one of us would be expected to do, so... Jolly: I guess from a timing perspective in terms of them choosing to maybe make a poor bet, on the renovations they are making to their home structure, at this point I would be interested in seeing what the State of Michigan said to your complaint and go from there to be honest with you. It's not to, obviously, clearly there’s a lot of people that this bothers, and I’m sure it would bother a lot of people, myself included, to an extent, right? But, there is a remedy that’s provided, as you state, by the State of Michigan. Vandervennet: There should be. Jolly: That should be the first course of action before we really take up a whole lot of business in regards to this. Vandervennet: Just really quick, if that’s ok, the only, the main thing that we’re concerned about was that they came in and done this kind of thing under the radar without going through the proper channels, the building department, the zoning permits, that type of thing. We keep getting different stories from different people in the building department on what 8 they can and what they can not do. So, we need a little clarification from the City. Toy: Ok, what I want you to do is leave your information with me like you asked, ok, and then we’ll look into it and then as Vice President Jolly has said, we would like you to bring back any information from the State then we can better direct you forward. Ok? Vandervennet: Absolutely. Toy: Alright, thanks for coming in, wait one second, Councilwoman McIntyre? McIntyre: One was that it would be really helpful, I know we don’t have anybody from the Administration here to run this formally as the Administration, but to understand, again, back on local control versus the State, right? Which items regarding any kind of adult group home are under the City’s jurisdiction because there might be a lot of these issues that only fall under State and maybe County jurisdiction, so I think it would be helpful for us to understand what we do have jurisdiction over. Taormina: If I may, just respond. Toy: Please, go ahead. Taormina: I can say with a great deal of confidence that the State of Michigan does pre-empt local regulation adult foster care facilities that are licensed and have six or few residents. They have to be treated the same as any other single-family residential structure. Anything beyond that in terms of number of occupants can be treated as a special land use, in which case it is in the City of Livonia and would have to go through that process. In fact, we just had a case similar to that on Bainbridge. McIntyre: Alright, thank you. So yeah, a lot of these issues are beyond our control, by not because we don’t want to, but because the State has said you don’t have any control, this is our control. I certainly appreciated learning about this tonight. Toy: Ok, thank you. Thank you very much, we are adjourned. The Public Hearing was declared closed at 7:46 p.m.